Thursday, March 31, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Bit O Rant-O-Rant (13 Minutes Rant)
…because it’s Monday....and because I haven't done a '13 Minutes Rant for 2 years'.
Some comment on some article about Keith Allen (Lily’s daddy) slagging off Charlie Brooker. Utter uselessness, so I won’t go in on that.
Under the article is a comment I like to react to:
Quoted with bad punctuation and all.
First of all, apparently, Charlie Brooker is not worth being written with first capital letters, but Chris Morris is. Ah, well…
The point this person is making (or trying to make) is completely lost on me. We know Chris Morris was there first; what’s your point? Because Chris Morris was there first Charlie Brooker is not allowed to do it? Strange logic which if we apply it to the rest of life on earth would mean not many people should be allowed to do anything anymore, because most things most people do on a daily basis has been done by others.
Even if the point is that what Charlie Brooker does has already been done BETTER by Chris Morris, then I’m still mystified about the point. So what? Because Chris Morris did it already and did it better doesn’t mean Charlie Brooker can’t do it anymore. Even applying this theory would lay still most of life.
What exactly is this commentator trying to say?
The rest of the comment doesn’t clarify anything to me either. The only thing I’m getting from it is that this person is not a big fan of CB, prefers CM, and thinks Lily Allen made a credible addition to pop music. I don’t think that was what the article was about.
Source: Radio Times article
Some comment on some article about Keith Allen (Lily’s daddy) slagging off Charlie Brooker. Utter uselessness, so I won’t go in on that.
Under the article is a comment I like to react to:
”i quite like some of charlie brookers stuff like newswipe etc tho too be fair,Chris Morris got there 1st with Brass eye & the day today.”
Quoted with bad punctuation and all.
First of all, apparently, Charlie Brooker is not worth being written with first capital letters, but Chris Morris is. Ah, well…
The point this person is making (or trying to make) is completely lost on me. We know Chris Morris was there first; what’s your point? Because Chris Morris was there first Charlie Brooker is not allowed to do it? Strange logic which if we apply it to the rest of life on earth would mean not many people should be allowed to do anything anymore, because most things most people do on a daily basis has been done by others.
Even if the point is that what Charlie Brooker does has already been done BETTER by Chris Morris, then I’m still mystified about the point. So what? Because Chris Morris did it already and did it better doesn’t mean Charlie Brooker can’t do it anymore. Even applying this theory would lay still most of life.
What exactly is this commentator trying to say?
The rest of the comment doesn’t clarify anything to me either. The only thing I’m getting from it is that this person is not a big fan of CB, prefers CM, and thinks Lily Allen made a credible addition to pop music. I don’t think that was what the article was about.
Source: Radio Times article
a Walking Contradiction
There’s another issue concerning an item in ’10 O’Clock Live’ I think I should address, if only to stay consistent with what I said a few blogs ago. It’s just that I grew so tired with tackling this issue that I didn’t really feel like it.
Anyway, one(!) of Brooker’s monologues was about the whole Twitter/Rebecca Black debacle. His monologue took a turn scowling at the tweeters who left negative comments on Black’s twitter feed. Brooker seems to think those people work in Burger King (stores) and are scum. Ewww, what a contradictions.
If I read right Mr. Brooker himself worked most of his twenties in stores. If he hadn’t been lucky he would probably still working in stores. Working in computer store is hardly any better than working in a Burger King, if it is at all. Also, wasn’t he a paid critic who spew quite a bit of bile about all kind of programs and other stuff in a fucking nationally published paper off and online?
Maybe he has seen the light (which I doubt)?
I think it’s now my turn to receive some hate mail/posts.
His column about it is nice though: my Monday Happiness disguised as a column by Charlie Brooker for the Guardian, somewhat...
Reminds me, I have a Twitter account.
Anyway, one(!) of Brooker’s monologues was about the whole Twitter/Rebecca Black debacle. His monologue took a turn scowling at the tweeters who left negative comments on Black’s twitter feed. Brooker seems to think those people work in Burger King (stores) and are scum. Ewww, what a contradictions.
If I read right Mr. Brooker himself worked most of his twenties in stores. If he hadn’t been lucky he would probably still working in stores. Working in computer store is hardly any better than working in a Burger King, if it is at all. Also, wasn’t he a paid critic who spew quite a bit of bile about all kind of programs and other stuff in a fucking nationally published paper off and online?
Maybe he has seen the light (which I doubt)?
I think it’s now my turn to receive some hate mail/posts.
His column about it is nice though: my Monday Happiness disguised as a column by Charlie Brooker for the Guardian, somewhat...
Reminds me, I have a Twitter account.
"10 O'Clock Live" - Response to Mr. Smith
I have to address this, because this is too funny to ignore it.
1. BCG
2. Chortle
3. There’s also an article on Digital Spy which I cannot access at work.
First it is admitted that all means, illegal viewing maybe too, have to be included to be able to say a reasonable amount of viewers watch the show. I can tell you why we don’t watch it live; because we can’t be bothered.
Then it is said that’s the reason why the show is broadcast live. My belly aches from laughing and my cheeks are wet with tears. Yes, Mr. Smith, it’s very exciting to watch them stumble and fluffing lines and the spontaneity, especially of the fucking audience, is very much appreciated. I really wanted to see on a weekly basis all the bits, which in a pre-record get cut out for good reasons. It’s such a shame most of the spontaneity makes me and a lot of other people cringe beyond reason. And I’m not even watching it live. What’s the point?
Can you imagine how cheated I feel? I'm watching a recorded piece and it's shit. Exaggerating here
1. BCG
2. Chortle
3. There’s also an article on Digital Spy which I cannot access at work.
First it is admitted that all means, illegal viewing maybe too, have to be included to be able to say a reasonable amount of viewers watch the show. I can tell you why we don’t watch it live; because we can’t be bothered.
Then it is said that’s the reason why the show is broadcast live. My belly aches from laughing and my cheeks are wet with tears. Yes, Mr. Smith, it’s very exciting to watch them stumble and fluffing lines and the spontaneity, especially of the fucking audience, is very much appreciated. I really wanted to see on a weekly basis all the bits, which in a pre-record get cut out for good reasons. It’s such a shame most of the spontaneity makes me and a lot of other people cringe beyond reason. And I’m not even watching it live. What’s the point?
Can you imagine how cheated I feel? I'm watching a recorded piece and it's shit. Exaggerating here
"10 O'Clock Live" - Response to Review
Read this piece first before reading the text below.
It’s funny how different people have different views of the same thing. This is the first time though, I found someone thinking this was becoming ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. Most criticisms have been that there’s not nearly enough Charlie Brooker. I don’t agree with either.
Charlie’s contributions have not been more or less than that it is now. Charlie’s contributions haven’t been more or less than the contributions from the others, except for Laverne’s. I think it’s also not fair to say that Charlie’s contributions have been more (or less) in quality compared to the others. When Charlie’s on about technical stuff like the Ipad or Twitter, he’s spot on. He’s not so much spot on when it comes to pure political analysis; that seems to be more David Mitchell’s area and sometimes Jimmy Carr says something sensible. (I’m just completely going to ignore Laverne for now).
David Mitchell, even though not a natural interviewer, has been quality wise quite strong. He’s learning too (Why do I seem to be the only one who sees that?). He stepped out of his comfort zone to do something new; Charlie hasn’t. He doesn’t even seem to be attempting to. Even Carr has stepped out of his comfort zone with doing these sketches (which I still absolutely hate, though I feel it is getting a bit better).
I don’t think this is turning into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. I also suspect that after Charlie did his thing, he mentally logs off. Around the table Laverne has to drag him into the discussions which usually only seem to go on between Mitchell and Carr. Even when they’re doing the headlines for the next days Laverne has to poke him in the ribs to lift up his cardboard fake of a front page. A few times she even lunged, grabbed and held the cardboard up herself (which made me laugh, to be honest).
Charlie Brooker is not naturally interested in politics and it shows, very clearly (lazily leaning cheek/chin in hand while not participating in discussions). That’s why ‘10 O’Clock Live’ will never turn into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show as long it wants to be a ‘current affairs’ show.
Also people have to really use the correct name; it's '10 O'Clock LIVE', not the '10 O'Clock show'. Or are they trying to tell the producers of the show something?
It’s funny how different people have different views of the same thing. This is the first time though, I found someone thinking this was becoming ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. Most criticisms have been that there’s not nearly enough Charlie Brooker. I don’t agree with either.
Charlie’s contributions have not been more or less than that it is now. Charlie’s contributions haven’t been more or less than the contributions from the others, except for Laverne’s. I think it’s also not fair to say that Charlie’s contributions have been more (or less) in quality compared to the others. When Charlie’s on about technical stuff like the Ipad or Twitter, he’s spot on. He’s not so much spot on when it comes to pure political analysis; that seems to be more David Mitchell’s area and sometimes Jimmy Carr says something sensible. (I’m just completely going to ignore Laverne for now).
David Mitchell, even though not a natural interviewer, has been quality wise quite strong. He’s learning too (Why do I seem to be the only one who sees that?). He stepped out of his comfort zone to do something new; Charlie hasn’t. He doesn’t even seem to be attempting to. Even Carr has stepped out of his comfort zone with doing these sketches (which I still absolutely hate, though I feel it is getting a bit better).
I don’t think this is turning into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. I also suspect that after Charlie did his thing, he mentally logs off. Around the table Laverne has to drag him into the discussions which usually only seem to go on between Mitchell and Carr. Even when they’re doing the headlines for the next days Laverne has to poke him in the ribs to lift up his cardboard fake of a front page. A few times she even lunged, grabbed and held the cardboard up herself (which made me laugh, to be honest).
Charlie Brooker is not naturally interested in politics and it shows, very clearly (lazily leaning cheek/chin in hand while not participating in discussions). That’s why ‘10 O’Clock Live’ will never turn into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show as long it wants to be a ‘current affairs’ show.
Also people have to really use the correct name; it's '10 O'Clock LIVE', not the '10 O'Clock show'. Or are they trying to tell the producers of the show something?
the New Era of Wars
Today is a typical Monday.
It’s quiet in the office. Not because people stayed out of the office to enjoy the first sunny days of the years. They’re all here. They’re all silently typing and clicking away on keyboards and mice (does this plural also go for the technical devices we click away many an hours with?). Even though the first spring sun is happily out and about, the faces in here are characteristically down with concentration and the typical Monday blues. It’s good in a way; I tend to get things done on a Monday.
Last weekend I filled most of my days with lazing, cleaning and revising. I’ve been catching up on “10 O’Clock Live”; I’ve got a handwritten piece waiting. I’ve resumed reading the book I bought during my last visit to England; ‘In Europe’ that handles about 20th century Europe. I’ve been taking in a lot of politics; Second World War and the whole mess in Libya and other Arabian countries. I’ve been thinking about the new era in which wars are fought from a new angle. Europe is still almost constantly at war, just not on their own grounds. I can see how people see that as ‘meddling’.
I think we are learning be it quite slow. What do you expect? Human kind is not known for their rapid understanding and planning in new situations. We learn through faults, mistakes and personal dramas. We learn through genocide, fuck ups and economical collapses. We only move our arses when we think we have something to lose or something to gain. We usually don’t see the bigger picture.
I am all for the UN intervention in Libya. Maybe not in the form it worked out, but I can see some progress. I remember, vaguely Kosovo. I definitely remember Afghanistan and in a less involved way Iraque. I remember Sarkozy’s tactic for the Libya situation. You can say a lot about this mission, but he had the latest interventions lodged in his head when he called on the various partners to intervent in Libya. He said: “We’re not going in by forcing our way in shooting. We’re not going in to overthrow Gadaffi; we’re going in to protect the Libyan people, but we will not intervene further in the Libyan politics.” That sounds sensible enough.
The question is where to draw the line. If you see a fight in the street, are you going in with your fists clenched and ready to hit, or are those fists only to protect the attacked? When does hitting someone become supporting one party or self defence? Or are we going to stand aside, maybe call the police, but do nothing further?
In my mind only watching what was happening in Libya was never an option. You can’t stand aside watching, shrugging and moving on with your life while someone else, innocent, is being beaten senseless. How do you protect someone? By taking away the stick they were hitting with and then watch how it becomes a fist fight? Can you step in just standing there merely only being an obstacle? When is it all right to step in?
I lost sight a bit of what is happening in Libya. I think the UN is only shooting and bombing artillery of Gadaffi. The actual fighting between Gadaffi’s troops and the rebels is left to these two parties. The only thing I read about it in a paper is that some people think UN soldiers have given weapons to the rebels. This was denied by an UN spokes person.
I’m still all for the intervention, but I am also dubious about it, like so many people, because at some point it does become ‘meddling’ if we do too much. When is it too much? You don’t want something like Srebrenica happening again. Dutchbat, the Dutch troops, witness thousands of people being captured and killed under the term ‘ethnic cleansings’. So they should have stepped in? But what if they did and shot a few people? Then that would have been called ‘meddling’?
It’s a fine line to tread. It’s the new era of wars. As soon we get the hang of it, we’ll be entering a new era again. Maybe at this rate we might achieve world peace in 3384, if the world still exists, that is.
It’s quiet in the office. Not because people stayed out of the office to enjoy the first sunny days of the years. They’re all here. They’re all silently typing and clicking away on keyboards and mice (does this plural also go for the technical devices we click away many an hours with?). Even though the first spring sun is happily out and about, the faces in here are characteristically down with concentration and the typical Monday blues. It’s good in a way; I tend to get things done on a Monday.
Last weekend I filled most of my days with lazing, cleaning and revising. I’ve been catching up on “10 O’Clock Live”; I’ve got a handwritten piece waiting. I’ve resumed reading the book I bought during my last visit to England; ‘In Europe’ that handles about 20th century Europe. I’ve been taking in a lot of politics; Second World War and the whole mess in Libya and other Arabian countries. I’ve been thinking about the new era in which wars are fought from a new angle. Europe is still almost constantly at war, just not on their own grounds. I can see how people see that as ‘meddling’.
I think we are learning be it quite slow. What do you expect? Human kind is not known for their rapid understanding and planning in new situations. We learn through faults, mistakes and personal dramas. We learn through genocide, fuck ups and economical collapses. We only move our arses when we think we have something to lose or something to gain. We usually don’t see the bigger picture.
I am all for the UN intervention in Libya. Maybe not in the form it worked out, but I can see some progress. I remember, vaguely Kosovo. I definitely remember Afghanistan and in a less involved way Iraque. I remember Sarkozy’s tactic for the Libya situation. You can say a lot about this mission, but he had the latest interventions lodged in his head when he called on the various partners to intervent in Libya. He said: “We’re not going in by forcing our way in shooting. We’re not going in to overthrow Gadaffi; we’re going in to protect the Libyan people, but we will not intervene further in the Libyan politics.” That sounds sensible enough.
The question is where to draw the line. If you see a fight in the street, are you going in with your fists clenched and ready to hit, or are those fists only to protect the attacked? When does hitting someone become supporting one party or self defence? Or are we going to stand aside, maybe call the police, but do nothing further?
In my mind only watching what was happening in Libya was never an option. You can’t stand aside watching, shrugging and moving on with your life while someone else, innocent, is being beaten senseless. How do you protect someone? By taking away the stick they were hitting with and then watch how it becomes a fist fight? Can you step in just standing there merely only being an obstacle? When is it all right to step in?
I lost sight a bit of what is happening in Libya. I think the UN is only shooting and bombing artillery of Gadaffi. The actual fighting between Gadaffi’s troops and the rebels is left to these two parties. The only thing I read about it in a paper is that some people think UN soldiers have given weapons to the rebels. This was denied by an UN spokes person.
I’m still all for the intervention, but I am also dubious about it, like so many people, because at some point it does become ‘meddling’ if we do too much. When is it too much? You don’t want something like Srebrenica happening again. Dutchbat, the Dutch troops, witness thousands of people being captured and killed under the term ‘ethnic cleansings’. So they should have stepped in? But what if they did and shot a few people? Then that would have been called ‘meddling’?
It’s a fine line to tread. It’s the new era of wars. As soon we get the hang of it, we’ll be entering a new era again. Maybe at this rate we might achieve world peace in 3384, if the world still exists, that is.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Charlie Brooker - the Product
Little children will grow up and some will be big and successful. I have to admit I tend to be attracted by people who are still doing their thing in a dark corner, or who at least don’t attract as much attention as other more ‘successful’ colleagues. Jason Mraz before he became big. Things got a bit crowded and weird when he was suddenly Mr. I’m Yours. That’s all good; he deserved all that success, but it made me feel a little uncomfortable.
And now Charlie Brooker. I was late to the party, yes. The reason I was attracted to him (his work, really) was that he was quietly doing his thing in a corner of entertainment during his Screen-, News- and Gameswipe period and earlier. He was genuinely observant, witty and brutally honest. He hardly had to adhere to boundaries, because hardly anyone (sensitive) was paying attention to him. I loved that; it can’t get more real and true than that. Now he’s Mr. Big Shot and I’m a little lost.
These days his words are quoted as if he’s a prophet. These days people feel he has a lot to answer for. People also feel he became too main stream. Charlie Brooker is no longer an individual doing his thing in a dark corner hardly being heard or seen by anyone. No, Charlie Brooker is now public property, property which anyone who feels like it can piss over or put on a pedestal. Whatever you like, because Charlie Brooker became a product.
I don’t quite understand people saying he’s got a lot to answer for. For instance the Zeppotron productions like ‘8 Out of 10 Cats’. He’s not Zeppotron, he’s only one of the founders. He doesn’t even run Zeppotron, he’s only one part of it. You can’t expect him to answer for the mess other people within Zeppotron make. The only Zeppotron production he’s in that makes me frown and grimace is ‘10 O’Clock Live’ and even there, he’s not the only one working on that show and his pieces, even though a bit shallower than I would like them to be, were quite good. All other Zeppotron productions his name bear were at least of a reasonable level of quality. So that shouldn’t be the reason he has to answer for anything. What is? I have no idea.
Then his work opposed to his marriage. I still haven’t worked out what the 2 have to do with each other except that Charlie’s involved in it and in some points Konnie was and still is. Except from that, we’re talking about two different things. And like I said before in another post, Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. That he’s married doesn’t mean he can’t say anymore some show is shit; it’s just probably not the best thing to do.
Also the fact that Charlie bites the hand that’s feeding him is not entirely true. I’m still convinced that Charlie was only bitching about certain shows because of his love for the medium TV, and those shows should have been better or hidden in a closet behind some old stuff that’s never get used anymore.
The whole discussion about his hair. What the hell is that all about!? What does his hair have to do with anything of his work? Charlie Brooker never was a looker. Charlie Brooker will probably never be a looker. Charlie Brooker was never and shall never be promoted as a looker, because that’s not the point of his work. His hair, being a part of his looks, is of no importance. Can we now stop talking about his hair?
And finally the Charlie Brooker lovers. I am one, I confess that readily. I will not however, put him on a pedestal. If he screws up, I will be one of the first to point that out, as I have in the past. Yes, Charlie said things that sounded fairly true, but so have wiser men than Charlie, more often than Charlie about subjects that really matter. Charlie’s not stupid, no, but he’s not the wise, half-god prophet some people seem to hold him for. He’s just another man who appears on TV quite a bit (much) lately. That’s all fine and he deserved all the success, but let’s not overreact; there’s no need, really.
I realize I sound a bit angry in this piece. I am not. I am actually quite amused. I am also very confused, but still more amused than confused.
And now Charlie Brooker. I was late to the party, yes. The reason I was attracted to him (his work, really) was that he was quietly doing his thing in a corner of entertainment during his Screen-, News- and Gameswipe period and earlier. He was genuinely observant, witty and brutally honest. He hardly had to adhere to boundaries, because hardly anyone (sensitive) was paying attention to him. I loved that; it can’t get more real and true than that. Now he’s Mr. Big Shot and I’m a little lost.
These days his words are quoted as if he’s a prophet. These days people feel he has a lot to answer for. People also feel he became too main stream. Charlie Brooker is no longer an individual doing his thing in a dark corner hardly being heard or seen by anyone. No, Charlie Brooker is now public property, property which anyone who feels like it can piss over or put on a pedestal. Whatever you like, because Charlie Brooker became a product.
I don’t quite understand people saying he’s got a lot to answer for. For instance the Zeppotron productions like ‘8 Out of 10 Cats’. He’s not Zeppotron, he’s only one of the founders. He doesn’t even run Zeppotron, he’s only one part of it. You can’t expect him to answer for the mess other people within Zeppotron make. The only Zeppotron production he’s in that makes me frown and grimace is ‘10 O’Clock Live’ and even there, he’s not the only one working on that show and his pieces, even though a bit shallower than I would like them to be, were quite good. All other Zeppotron productions his name bear were at least of a reasonable level of quality. So that shouldn’t be the reason he has to answer for anything. What is? I have no idea.
Then his work opposed to his marriage. I still haven’t worked out what the 2 have to do with each other except that Charlie’s involved in it and in some points Konnie was and still is. Except from that, we’re talking about two different things. And like I said before in another post, Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. That he’s married doesn’t mean he can’t say anymore some show is shit; it’s just probably not the best thing to do.
Also the fact that Charlie bites the hand that’s feeding him is not entirely true. I’m still convinced that Charlie was only bitching about certain shows because of his love for the medium TV, and those shows should have been better or hidden in a closet behind some old stuff that’s never get used anymore.
The whole discussion about his hair. What the hell is that all about!? What does his hair have to do with anything of his work? Charlie Brooker never was a looker. Charlie Brooker will probably never be a looker. Charlie Brooker was never and shall never be promoted as a looker, because that’s not the point of his work. His hair, being a part of his looks, is of no importance. Can we now stop talking about his hair?
And finally the Charlie Brooker lovers. I am one, I confess that readily. I will not however, put him on a pedestal. If he screws up, I will be one of the first to point that out, as I have in the past. Yes, Charlie said things that sounded fairly true, but so have wiser men than Charlie, more often than Charlie about subjects that really matter. Charlie’s not stupid, no, but he’s not the wise, half-god prophet some people seem to hold him for. He’s just another man who appears on TV quite a bit (much) lately. That’s all fine and he deserved all the success, but let’s not overreact; there’s no need, really.
I realize I sound a bit angry in this piece. I am not. I am actually quite amused. I am also very confused, but still more amused than confused.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" - Some Praise...
Ironically, this here article goes to show how '10 O'Clock Live' attracts the young(ish) people with no brain cells.
To be fair, I can't directly reference dumbness from this writer's piece. It's just unfortunate she recognizes smartness and intelligence where it's only available in sparse quantities. This in contrary to her not recognizing why most people don't like '10 O'Clock Live' me included. If they want my attention, I need more substance and with substance I mean political observations and analysis, not just what people look like.
To be fair, I can't directly reference dumbness from this writer's piece. It's just unfortunate she recognizes smartness and intelligence where it's only available in sparse quantities. This in contrary to her not recognizing why most people don't like '10 O'Clock Live' me included. If they want my attention, I need more substance and with substance I mean political observations and analysis, not just what people look like.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Nobody Really Cares
How much do we really know about Libya?
This is an important question since everybody seems to have an opinion about what is or is not happening in Libya at the moment and since justifications for military interventions are now based on what we think we know.
Last weekend a resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya has been agreed on. It is said it’s agreed on to protect the Libyan people from Gadaffi’s army. That is what the European leaders say. That was what some Arabian partners agreed on. That’s not entirely what people believe is happening. Some of the Arabian partners have protested against the military actions executed over the weekend, or so they reported. Also China is now protesting against the current actions.
How can we really know? Some journalists are there in Benghazi, but they’re known for seeking sensation. Some people opposing Gadaffi say they’re attacked by Gadaffi’s army, but of course they would. Some people supporting Gadaffi say the bombs that killed are the European bombs, but of course they would.
By now I’m a bit mystified by all that’s happening, that is said and reported and justified in all kind of ways. I’m also not that sure about the intentions from any party involved in this mess. As usual everybody is covering up. Or that is my suspicion.
Nobody really cares about the well being of the people suffering. Gadaffi just wants his power. Europe just wants to make sure they can suck out all the oil. Russia just wants to keep selling weapons to Libya. And the Arabian countries as well as China are working on their image problems.
Maybe it’s only the people on the streets who care a little, but we are all ill-informed, lied to and deceived. And in the end, this evening we’ll be sitting eating our diner and watching the news while shaking our heads and maybe our fists, but nobody is really sure what to say or do. So we’ll zap to our favourite soap opera or panel show and forget so we can sleep in ignorant bliss again.
This is an important question since everybody seems to have an opinion about what is or is not happening in Libya at the moment and since justifications for military interventions are now based on what we think we know.
Last weekend a resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya has been agreed on. It is said it’s agreed on to protect the Libyan people from Gadaffi’s army. That is what the European leaders say. That was what some Arabian partners agreed on. That’s not entirely what people believe is happening. Some of the Arabian partners have protested against the military actions executed over the weekend, or so they reported. Also China is now protesting against the current actions.
How can we really know? Some journalists are there in Benghazi, but they’re known for seeking sensation. Some people opposing Gadaffi say they’re attacked by Gadaffi’s army, but of course they would. Some people supporting Gadaffi say the bombs that killed are the European bombs, but of course they would.
By now I’m a bit mystified by all that’s happening, that is said and reported and justified in all kind of ways. I’m also not that sure about the intentions from any party involved in this mess. As usual everybody is covering up. Or that is my suspicion.
Nobody really cares about the well being of the people suffering. Gadaffi just wants his power. Europe just wants to make sure they can suck out all the oil. Russia just wants to keep selling weapons to Libya. And the Arabian countries as well as China are working on their image problems.
Maybe it’s only the people on the streets who care a little, but we are all ill-informed, lied to and deceived. And in the end, this evening we’ll be sitting eating our diner and watching the news while shaking our heads and maybe our fists, but nobody is really sure what to say or do. So we’ll zap to our favourite soap opera or panel show and forget so we can sleep in ignorant bliss again.
Friday, March 18, 2011
OMG I Found Something!!!
I love searching for collecter items. This is a Charlie Brooker one:
And this one:
And this one:
Meat Market of Sorts...
Feel like browsing on a meat market? Yeah? Okay, go here.
It's actually a very noble kinda market. Please bid for I can't.
It's actually a very noble kinda market. Please bid for I can't.
"10 O'Clock Live" - Last Advice
This is the last advice I’m going to write to/about ‘10 O’Clock Live’.
Pre-record the show and take your cut advantages. Let Charlie Brooker do another series of Newswipe, Lauren Laverne present some straight faced show and Jimmy Carr whatever else he can screw up I won’t be able to watch and let David Mitchell tackle the news on his own maybe with contributions from others. He can still do his interviews, but he has to learn to do interviews more impartial and let the interviewees actually talk. He has to learn what a more professional approach of interviewing is. And also give the show a different name and get rid of this damn awful audience.
In short dump this pathetic foetus of an abortion and try to develop something that might live up to the expectations you created for this show.
And please stop tormenting us.
Pre-record the show and take your cut advantages. Let Charlie Brooker do another series of Newswipe, Lauren Laverne present some straight faced show and Jimmy Carr whatever else he can screw up I won’t be able to watch and let David Mitchell tackle the news on his own maybe with contributions from others. He can still do his interviews, but he has to learn to do interviews more impartial and let the interviewees actually talk. He has to learn what a more professional approach of interviewing is. And also give the show a different name and get rid of this damn awful audience.
In short dump this pathetic foetus of an abortion and try to develop something that might live up to the expectations you created for this show.
And please stop tormenting us.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Stop the Ridiculous Accusations
Normally I don’t take notice of people stating that someone doesn’t have the right anymore to say or do something, because he married someone. Yes, of course I’m talking Brooker/Huq again, but the inconsistencies and the strange way of measurement is starting to really piss me off.
This is a many heard statement: “Charlie doesn’t have the right anymore to mock dodgy presenters, cause he’s married one.”
What? Why not? I don’t think Charlie married Konnie because she’s such a fine/dodgy presenter. I think more personal reasons lead to their marriage. This is like being rejected from a job in a fish store because your partner is not a very good fisher(wo)man. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about crosswords, because your partner sucks at solving them. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about people who don’t know anything about computers, because your partner is one of them. That is bullshit!
Maybe he doesn’t have the right, because he became a dodgy presenter himself, but not because he married Konnie Huq. He’s not responsible for her behaviour, because that Mss. Huq still is herself.
I like to point out that a work relationship is not the same as a marriage. I don’t think Konnie stands besides the bed with a mic in her hand when Charlie wakes up in the morning telling him he’s watching his own marriage and today is going to be a fine day because Konnie is horny and in for experimentation, but first, breakfast.
Sure he still has the right to mock dodgy presenters, it’s just not very smart since if he wants to remain fair he, at some point, has to mock his own wife. That can be tricky.
Charlie doesn’t owe us anything except maybe the gratitude we did read and watch his work. He doesn’t owe us new work, or work in the same vain. What he wants to do in his career is his own choice and not ours. What he wants to do in his private life is completely his own choice and none of our business. Nor does his private life hold a relation to his work unless he decides to televise his marriage to Konnie which so far I don’t think he has.
Judging Charlie’s work on how his marriage goes or who he’s married to is not only unfair, but also wrong, because his marriage doesn’t represent his work. Konnie doesn’t represent his work. Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. And their marriage is a different subject all together.
If you want to blame any poor quality in his work to anything, blame it to his hair. His hair has proven to be distracting.
This is a many heard statement: “Charlie doesn’t have the right anymore to mock dodgy presenters, cause he’s married one.”
What? Why not? I don’t think Charlie married Konnie because she’s such a fine/dodgy presenter. I think more personal reasons lead to their marriage. This is like being rejected from a job in a fish store because your partner is not a very good fisher(wo)man. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about crosswords, because your partner sucks at solving them. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about people who don’t know anything about computers, because your partner is one of them. That is bullshit!
Maybe he doesn’t have the right, because he became a dodgy presenter himself, but not because he married Konnie Huq. He’s not responsible for her behaviour, because that Mss. Huq still is herself.
I like to point out that a work relationship is not the same as a marriage. I don’t think Konnie stands besides the bed with a mic in her hand when Charlie wakes up in the morning telling him he’s watching his own marriage and today is going to be a fine day because Konnie is horny and in for experimentation, but first, breakfast.
Sure he still has the right to mock dodgy presenters, it’s just not very smart since if he wants to remain fair he, at some point, has to mock his own wife. That can be tricky.
Charlie doesn’t owe us anything except maybe the gratitude we did read and watch his work. He doesn’t owe us new work, or work in the same vain. What he wants to do in his career is his own choice and not ours. What he wants to do in his private life is completely his own choice and none of our business. Nor does his private life hold a relation to his work unless he decides to televise his marriage to Konnie which so far I don’t think he has.
Judging Charlie’s work on how his marriage goes or who he’s married to is not only unfair, but also wrong, because his marriage doesn’t represent his work. Konnie doesn’t represent his work. Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. And their marriage is a different subject all together.
If you want to blame any poor quality in his work to anything, blame it to his hair. His hair has proven to be distracting.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
24 Panel People and a bit of 10 O'Clock Live
Last weekend I spend a great deal watching the live internet feed of 24 Panel People for Red Nose day. David Walliams set up to stay up for 24 hours playing old and current panel shows. I'm not a big fan of David Walliams. I do love watching a panel show. For me 24 hours of panel show fun, setting up new stages and warming up the audience included, was a treat to me. Yesterday I calculated I watched nearly 15 hours of the telethon.
The whole event wasn't exactly advertised very well. I found out by chance, because I was doing my 10 O'Clock Live preresearch. At work I checked if I could watch it, but I got the regular 'this is not available in your area' notification. Thanks for that. This meant, on Saturday, I was watching old episodes of WILTY (Would I Lie To You) eefectively missing the start of the telethon with, you guessed it, yes David Walliams, d'oh! I was actually going to say WILTY. I was gutted when I found out, even though the schedules told me that wasn't what happened, but I happened to know that it did happened. I was quickly distracted by the somewhat underwhelming appearance of Charlie Brooker on It's Only TV.
Catching up with the last episode of 10 O'Clock Live was pushed back to Sunday evening. Overall a level we grew used to in this show. I've already forgotten what happened, and I even tried rewatching it yesterday, but I fell asleep and now I still don't remember what happened.
Anyway, the whole purpose of this blog is to end up here, at the end of the blog to direct you to this link and say: "Imagine being not quite awake at work behind your desk wondering and dreading the things you have to do that day and being confronted by this head." I love Charlie Brooker, but seeing his name popping up everywhere makes me think: "When did he become all Mister Big Shot?" Somehow it seems weird and he seems out of place. Can't stop loving him though, which is quite annoying.
Oh, btw, How TV Ruined Your Life tonight on BBC2.
The whole event wasn't exactly advertised very well. I found out by chance, because I was doing my 10 O'Clock Live preresearch. At work I checked if I could watch it, but I got the regular 'this is not available in your area' notification. Thanks for that. This meant, on Saturday, I was watching old episodes of WILTY (Would I Lie To You) eefectively missing the start of the telethon with, you guessed it, yes David Walliams, d'oh! I was actually going to say WILTY. I was gutted when I found out, even though the schedules told me that wasn't what happened, but I happened to know that it did happened. I was quickly distracted by the somewhat underwhelming appearance of Charlie Brooker on It's Only TV.
Catching up with the last episode of 10 O'Clock Live was pushed back to Sunday evening. Overall a level we grew used to in this show. I've already forgotten what happened, and I even tried rewatching it yesterday, but I fell asleep and now I still don't remember what happened.
Anyway, the whole purpose of this blog is to end up here, at the end of the blog to direct you to this link and say: "Imagine being not quite awake at work behind your desk wondering and dreading the things you have to do that day and being confronted by this head." I love Charlie Brooker, but seeing his name popping up everywhere makes me think: "When did he become all Mister Big Shot?" Somehow it seems weird and he seems out of place. Can't stop loving him though, which is quite annoying.
Oh, btw, How TV Ruined Your Life tonight on BBC2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)